Performance That Every Man Should See, And No Child Should

Introduction

Gdzie Jest Tata? (Where is Daddy?) as seen at the New Theatre for Children Festival in Wrocław is a show produced by Everest Foundation, written by Jan Naturski, directed by Jan Naturski and Mikołaj Woubishet and played by Mikołaj Woubishet as Tutu and Jacek Marks as Tata (father). It is a show for ages 3 and up and most children in the audience were around that age. In the festival’s programme there is a mention that the children will laugh and have a good time while the parents might uncover a hidden message. The hidden message however is not so hidden for grown-ups. but the kids never notice anything about the message. The playfulness hides it which is exactly the problem. After the play had ended, I was feeling unsure of how to feel and at the same time I knew I was uneasy about what I had just seen. So, I went to talk to Zuzanna Madurska about what we had just seen.

Is it a performance for children?

Zuzanna Madurska: Gdzie Jest Tata? could be a play for children – but not for the younger ones. The creators suggest that children over the age of three can participate in the show. I believe that the age limit is set far too low. It would be a necessary to talk with a child after seeing this performance – to explain what happened on stage, and also make them aware that the convention used by the creators carry certain metaphors.

Who should be the target audience?

Tessa Coenen: I agree that it is not a play for kids. I think that every adult man should see the play, even teenagers should see the play. The play uses themes of toxic masculinity in a very poignant way that hits home with the adults in the audience. The behaviour of Tata has a very clear effect on Tutu, he becomes small, almost invisible as Tata is, among other things, drinking and performing violence. There is a discrepancy between what the adults see and what the children see. The children only see the fun acrobatics that Tata is doing and pay no attention to Tutu.

This play should be seen by an audience that can recognise their own behaviour in the character of Tata, or who can remember having a father like him and see how that behaviour affects the character of Tutu. They need to see that Tutu feels alone and shy without his father. They especially need to be confronted with the fact that Tata’s behaviour is a continuation within a vicious cycle of male violence.

The play opens with Mikołaj Woubishet who is dressed in a black trench coat, a black bowler hat and colourful shoes. He brings a trunk onto the stage, then he hangs up the coat, the hat, and takes off the shoes, he puts on another jacket and a colourful cap and so he becomes the character of Tutu. When Jacek Marsk as Tata enters, he puts on the black trench coat, the bowler hat and the colourful shoes, these clothes become synonymous with the father character. In a scene where Tutu is imagining another father called Titi, he uses the same clothes. The play ends with Tutu thinking it would be fun to become like his father and he puts on the clothes associated with the father. This should be seen by a male audience who can see that this symbolises a cycle of male violence.

In that case – why isn’t this show for children?

Zuzanna Madurska: The difficult (and perhaps even tragic – after all, at the end of the performance Dad melts and disappears…) story of the son’s relationship with his father is dressed in a comic mantle. The performance resembles a circus show – the characters are stylized as typical clowns, and during all the adventures they are accompanied by comedy music. Not only scenes of Tutu playing together with Dad are presented in the convention of a joke, but moments when the father left his son (and the son was afraid that Dad would never come back); came back from work and ignored requests to play together; completely destroyed his son’s imaginary friend; mumbled unintelligible words; had trouble keeping his balance and performing basic tasks (such as undressing to sleep – his son had to do it). I’m not sure that a young mind can grasp that something as funny as the skits presented is in fact not a funny story, but a conventional cloak under which lies an extremely difficult truth

Does the form suit the message?

Tessa Coenen:  If the play would be played for an older audience in exactly the same way, it would fit. For adult spectators, a comedic start would juxtapose the sour aftertaste well. It is, for example, funny that Tutu cannot find Tata at the beginning. It brings great physical comedy and acrobatics as Tata is jumping around Tutu, but after the second time an older audience can see the pattern clearly. Tata is never going to be there for Tutu.

The irony is that the form of the show works well with the children and the actors make a safe environment for the children, and they engage them well. For example, Tutu asks one of the children to help him move a big box but the girl doesn’t want to go on stage, so Tutu keeps asking the children until one of them jumps up to help. The form creates the impression that the show is silly and funny. Yet, the message behind the play is that there is a vicious cycle of male violence in our society and that it keeps repeating because children repeat their father if they don’t have another role model. That message is completely lost for the children in the audience. To make it worse, the playful form invites the children to repeat the behaviours seen on stage, so brings them into the cycle of violence.

What were the reactions of the children?

Zuzanna Madurska: The children seemed to be having a great time. When Tutu was looking for Dad, they helped him shouting and indicating his father’s location. Sometimes, when the son asked the audience for help, the youngest ones eagerly undertook the indicated task (importantly, Mikołaj Woubishet approached the children very gently and when they refused to come on stage to him, he did not force them to interact). The fear on the children’s faces could be seen when Tutu appeared on stage for the first time – he had a menacing look on his face and shouted incomprehensible messages to the audience.

However, when Tutu told the little ones about his father in only superlatives, the cheerful mood returned, and remained with the audience until the end of the performance, even in difficult moments  Some of the most explicit scenes were (as many as!) two shooting actions – during one, Dad pretended to shoot with a hanger (Tutu’s destroyed imaginary friend) at the audience. The other began with a father asking his son to give him water. So Tutu gave him water by shooting at him from a toy water gun. However, when he wanted to drink the “water” himself, it turned out that he didn’t like it very much, but with each shot from Dad, the boy croaked less and convinced himself that it was “good after all.” Later, both actors shot water at the audience. Leaving aside the numerous allusions that broke the hearts of many adults, I believe that showing children fight scenes, containing weapons, imitating inebriated behaviour – and all this in the convention of a joke – should not be normalised. Violence needs to be discussed, not made into entertainment whose ironic overtones the youngest cannot comprehend.

What is a big worry after seeing this play?

Tessa Coenen: During the performance we saw there were lots of children but not nearly as many adults in the audience, most of the children came in big groups with teachers. What are these children going to tell their parents when they come home? Do they have the tools to deal with these themes on their own at the age of 3+?

As an adult the theme of an alcoholic dad hit home because all, if not most, of us either know someone like Tata or have heard about them. But for the children all Tata did on stage was being silly with a water pistol. The water out of the pistol is bitter, says Tutu and Tata moves in a silly manner after drinking the water, but for the children that moment was a fun water fight. When the children go home what will they tell their parents? Probably that Tutu was playing imaginary football, and that Tata was struggling to get his coat and hat on the coat hanger. They are unlikely to understand that Tutu had to play on his own because Tata is not there for Tutu, or that Tata is an alcoholic who is too drunk to walk straight, let alone hang up his things. It is especially tricky because at the end of the play Tutu says it would be fun to be like his father, he puts on the trench coat and bowler hat and starts moving, copying his father’s earlier movements.

Conclusion

One cannot deny that Gdzie jest Tata? raises extremely important issues (the relationship between father and son, the responsibility taken for the child), tells a difficult and moving story (the child making up for parental shortcomings with imaginative work) and does so in an interesting way (by adopting a circus style). However, it is important to consider who the show is aimed at. If it is for children, is it appropriate to promote the idea that violence and loneliness are a joke? And if not – would it perhaps be a valid approach to address the production to those who are the ultimate source of children’s suffering?

 

Tessa Coenen, University of Amsterdam (discussion and introduction) and Zuzanna Madurska, University of Wrocław (discussion and conclusion).

This text was written by students as part of the collaboration between the University of Amsterdam, the University of Wrocław, and the Wrocław Puppetry Theatre and supervised by Kasia Lech and Justyna Kowal.